Re: about draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-01.txt (issue 40)

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Francis, it seems that we have multiple definitions
   of multihoming.

=> failover, SCTP-like and load balancing (cf your previous message).

   I suspect that the group's desire to do any specific
   type of multihoming relates very much to the expected
   usage.
   
   Yes. But I'm sure you also understand that we
   can't keep on arguing over an issue for ever, we
   need to make decisions at certain points in time,
   even if sometimes there are people who disagree
   with those decisions.
   
=> you have to choose a position, for instance fix the charter.
You should not use contradictory arguments to answer to my issue.

   I think we have a pending milestone change coming in any
   case. E.g., what's the timeplan and interest for reduced
   tunnel overhead and pfkey work? Should the transport doc
   be in the milestones?
   
   I see the SCTP support as one of the use cases in the
   charter, along with the main use case of roaming VPN
   users. My understanding has been that we are not
   required to cover everything that we need to do in
   one document.

=> so the issue is "closed" only for the current document?
   
Regards

[email protected]